The Patna High Court recently quashed a criminal case against an advocate accused of arranging for a proxy to appear in court on behalf of an accused [Sakaldeo Kumar Mandal v State of Bihar & Ors.].

The case involved allegations of cheating, forgery, impersonation and criminal conspiracy after a person was found to have appeared in court in place of the real accused.

In a judgment delivered on May 15, Justice Ansul underscored the complete absence of evidence linking advocate Sakaldeo Mandal to the alleged offences.

“There is not a shred of independent material connecting the petitioner (Mandal) to the offences alleged. No forged document bears his hand. No CCTV footage places him at the scene. No financial transaction, no call record, no corroborating circumstance of any kind is cited in the FIR against him,” observed the Court.

The judgment was delivered on a petition filed by Mandal seeking the quashing of a first information report (FIR) registered against him at Jamui police station.

The case stemmed from the apprehension of one Suman Kumar alias Amod Shah, who was found to have allegedly appeared in court impersonating another accused in a pending matter. CCTV footage confirmed his presence in the courtroom and officials identified him as having previously appeared in place of the actual accused.

During police inquiry, he claimed that Mandal had asked him to appear in court on someone’s behalf, prompting the registration of the FIR under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy against Mandal.

However, the Court noted that the prosecution’s case against Mandal rested solely on this statement made to the police by the co-accused, which was inadmissible in evidence.

It further recorded that even the FIR acknowledged that no bail application had been filed by Mandal on behalf of the impersonator.

The Court emphasised on the need for credible material, given the gravity of the charges.

“It is precisely because these are serious charges that the absence of any admissible, independent material against the petitioner becomes all the more significant. It must be recorded, and recorded clearly, that even if the entirety of the prosecution case is accepted at face value, as this Court is required to do in the exercise of its quashing jurisdiction, there is no legally cognizable material before the Court that would connect the petitioner to these offences,” the Court said.

The Court cautioned against allowing criminal proceedings to continue on speculative grounds, particularly where they rely solely on the statement by the co-accused. It held that such a prosecution would undermine the integrity of judicial process rather than serve it.

“The prosecution case against the petitioner is built wholly upon an inadmissible statement. That is not a foundation; it is conjecture. Proceeding on conjecture alone, in a case where the petitioner is a member of the legal profession, would render the process of this Court itself an instrument of oppression,” said the Court.

Hence, it quashed the FIR and all proceedings against Mandal.

Advocates Priyanka Singh, Umesh Prasad, Bihari Sen and Harsh Kumar appeared on behalf of Mandal (petitioner).

Additional Public Prosecutor Ajit Kumar appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]